Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If I can just finish this point, I shall come back to the noble Lord.
	It is worth recalling the concerns expressed yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and by my noble friend Lady Ramsay. They have much greater experience than anybody else in this Chamber. First, my noble friend the Lady Ramsay of Cartvale:
	"I am extremely worried and disturbed at how intelligence material in general and interception material in particular is being advocated by some noble Lords as suitable for disclosure in court proceedings ... That would be an extremely serious blow to any intelligence or law enforcement service".—[Official Report, 7/3/05; col. 601.]
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth said,
	"Frankly, if such agents see this sort of thing happening in courts, and defence counsel—quite properly, given the interests of their client—revealing what should not be revealed, then we shall not have any agents ... It is also one of the more serious aspects of terrorism that it is extremely difficult to find people with access, courage, determination and lasting power. We should not overlook the fact that they too have rights. They need to be protected—and need that protection more, I fear, than the person who would be on trial".—[Official Report, 7/3/05; col. 604.]
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, looked at this matter from an objective standpoint, and he made precisely the same point as has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and by my noble friend. He said specifically that if the material was disclosed to the suspect and his legal representative, then there would be danger. It is worth pointing out that in every one of the Belmarsh cases, the judge agreed that there was some material that could not be disclosed to the suspect or his legal representative. However, in relation to all that material, that suspect would have the benefit of a special advocate.
	That is the procedure, but is it fair or just? Can justice be done in relation to that? This is the view of the SIAC procedure on whether it is fair, in the case of A—which went to the House of Lords, but not on this point:
	"The proceedings are as fair as could reasonably be achieved. It is true that the detainees and their lawyers do not have the opportunity of examining the closed material. However, the use of separate counsel to act on their behalf in relation to the closed evidence provides a substantial degree of protection. In addition, in deciding upon whether there has been compliance with Article 6 it is necessary to look at the proceedings as a whole (including the appeal before this court). When this is done and the exception in relation to national security, referred to in Article 6, is given due weight, I am satisfied there is no contravention of that article".
	He returned to the issue again in the case of M:
	"Individuals who appeal to SIAC are undoubtedly under a grave disadvantage. So far as it is possible this disadvantage should be avoided or if it cannot be avoided minimised. However, the unfairness involved can be necessary because of the interests of national security. The involvement of a special advocate is intended to reduce (it cannot wholly eliminate) the unfairness which follows from the fact that an appellant will be unaware at least as to part of the case against him.
	We feel this case has additional importance because it clearly demonstrates that, while the procedures which SIAC have adopted are not ideal, it is possible by using special advocates to ensure that those detained can achieve justice. It is wrong, therefore, to undervalue the SIAC appeal process".
	Whoever makes the rules in relation to this process is going to make them similar to those which applied in relation to SIAC. They have to comply with Article 6. Noble Lords can if they wish believe, because it is deportation proceedings, that different rules of fairness would have applied. I think it extraordinarily unlikely that the courts would have taken that view in relation to a procedure that involved, by the time the Court of Appeal looked at it, somebody having been in prison for three years. It would be little comfort to be told that these are deportation proceedings and therefore different.